Developer Proposes to Redevelop University Mall into Mixed Use

share

A developer is eying a large, single-story commercial development and proposing that they transform it into a seven-story mixed-use building, with retail on the ground floor and rental housing above retail, office and parking. Sound familiar? It fits right into the discussion over the Davis Downtown, except that this proposal, which was revised on Friday, is for redeveloping University Mall.

The Brixmor Property Group is proposing that they redevelop University Mall “to enhance existing retail uses and add residential units to create a vibrant mixed-use development. The purpose of the project is to provide a shopping and residential environment that meets the needs of the local Davis community.”

They write: “This experiential project is designed to create a pedestrian and bike friendly environment while providing better and more functional retail, restaurants, and residential amenities.”

The current use of the 8.25 acre parcel is a 103,695 square foot neighborhood shopping center that features commercial uses and restaurants.

Over the years it has had various occupants, including Safeway, Harvest Market, and Gottschalks, among others. Currently the major tenants are Trader Joe’s, Forever 21, Cost Plus World Market, and The Davis Graduate. Professional offices are located on a partial second floor.

Trader Joe’s is located on its own stand-alone pad that is located at the corner of Russell Boulevard and Sycamore Lane. There are currently 427 parking spaces, mostly lining Russell Blvd.

The ARCO service station is not part of the property, and is located on Anderson and Russell in the southeast corner of the block. UC Davis is located immediately across the south side of the site with multi-family apartments located to the north of the site, and a single-family neighborhood farther north and east of the site.

The developer proposes the demolition of the entire approximately 90,653 square feet of the existing mall to create a mixed-use development. They are proposing the addition of 264 multi-family residential units and 136,800 square feet of retail space.

The proposal would not touch the existing 13,000-square-foot Trader Joe’s.

They propose the new retail space would accommodate shops, restaurants and other uses.

“The proposed improvements and uses would intensify and revitalize the center,” the developer writes. It includes a garage structure with three levels of parking. “At buildout, the project would include approximately 808,500 sf.”

That includes 412,500 in residential, 150,000 in retail, and a 246,000 parking garage.

“The existing building that currently houses the mall retail uses would be demolished and rebuilt to include four levels of residential units over three levels of parking and four levels of residential uses over retail uses,” they write.

They are proposing that two new pads would be added to the site adjacent to Russell Boulevard and would add approximately 30,000 sf of retail space.

They note, “It is the intent of Brixmor to retain as many of the existing tenants as possible.”

The proposed building height would be seven stories or approximately 80 feet. That would be comparable in height to the proposed Davis Live housing across Sycamore to the west.

The developers note: “The intent is to design the project to a LEED Gold equivalency with contemporary architectural elements. The design of the building will utilize energy efficient lighting and HVAC systems.”

They note, “The redeveloped site landscaping would include outdoor seating and congregating areas, bicycle parking, plazas and pedestrian connections among buildings. These new nodes will be designed to provide a pleasant experience for both the residences and shoppers alike.

“Through the intensification of an existing retail development verses converting an open space into a new development a high level of sustainability will be achieved,” they add.

On the residential usage, the developers are planning four levels of multi-family residential units over parking and retail that would create a vertical mixed-use project.

The project proposes 264 multi-family units which would consist of one, two, four and five-bedroom units that range in size from 700 to 18000 square feet. They estimate the total bed count to be 894.

They write: “Due to the immediate proximity to the University of Davis campus, the residential is primarily focused on student use, but will also welcome and include many options for non-students as well.”

The residential units will be arranged around a courtyard with a pool and an outdoor lounge area. Additional amenities will include will include a fitness room, extensive bike storage, a bike repair station, rooftop terrace and resident services.

To serve that population will be 693 parking spaces, of which 264 are for residential use and 429 are for retail use.

The 429 retail parking spaces for retail uses are planned in the first, second and third floors of the parking structure (249 spaces) and surface parking (200 spaces).

The shopping center community parking requirements for the site is 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf, which equates to 429 required parking spaces. All parking for residential units will be on the third level of the parking structure with 0.30 parking spaces per bed.

There will be bike parking on the first level of the residential building and each floor of the garage. One biking space will be provided per bed with 124 garage and surface-level spots to serve retail uses.

To achieve this project, it proposes a Rezone/Preliminary Development and a General Plan Amendment to permit the mix of retail and residential uses at the proposed density and building height.

Modifications to PD #2-97 are proposed to reflect development standards for the proposed project. A General Plan Amendment is needed to address the mix of uses with the larger residential component, as well as addressing the allowable floor area ratio to accommodate the project’s 1.48 floor area ratio for the residential and retail building area.

share

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

> We need to recruit Nations to come back as an integral part of our economic development strategy!

Much agreed! I was the last person to buy a food order there on their last day of operation (July 13, 1997).

I called corporate at the time and they said the Davis store was no longer economical and the landlord (at the time) wanted a rent increase, plus it allowed them to turn their supply trucks at Vacaville, saving money.

Note: there is still a Vacaville Nations.

But with a Nations now in Folsom, the supply truck turn is not an issue no more. Come back to Davis, Nations! Your old U-Mall is waiting.

is like asking, “are you are a good plague (only killing thousands and raping the environment), or a bad plague (killing 100’s of thousands, and raping the environment)… in either event all developers must go thru the gauntlet, with the intent being to make sure, as far as we can, that they not get a single dime of profit out of their efforts when all is said and done…

I’d probably be fighting Lincoln 40 right now, which is the future view out my living-room window. However, they came to us early, asked us our concerns, incorporated our concerns that they could feasibly mitigate, and signed an MOU with our neighborhood. If they keep their promises, I decree thee: GOOD DEVELOPER

Then there was Trackside. They lied to us early and often. They ignored or argued away the Design Guidelines and all our other concerns. They failed to mitigate and then said they had (they had, in their world): BAD DEVELOPER One of them floated a particular Design to the residents near 8th and B Streets at outreach meetings and then came back with a different design and ignored the residents concerns about the new design. Lies, deception. I decree thee: BAD DEVELOPER

Our neighborhood is suing the City over the latter, not the former. That is a coincidence, of course.

(Note: some other entity is suing over Lincoln40, true, but it ain’t us. Proving that no good deed goes unpunished).

2. This is not a megadorm proposal. It’s a vertical mixed use development. They anticipate student renters because that’s the location and the market, but they have designed in such a way that it won’t be exclusively so.

3. Not sure why it’s a bad time. There was a student who posted a few days ago that pointed out even if everything is built, we need additional student housing.

I thought it was obvious, but maybe not. One of the primary issues that is being dealt with in mediation is student housing. Why would UCD build agree to build any housing on campus, with all of these megadorm proposals in the city?

Parking and traffic is already difficult, when shopping at this mall. And again, mixed-use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements.

One of the primary issues that is being dealt with in mediation is student housing. Why would UCD build agree to build any housing on campus, with all of these megadorm proposals in the city?

UCD has already agreed to build housing on campus. That’s not really at issue.
This is not a “megadorm” proposal.
This private development proposal doesn’t really have any connection to city/UC mediation.

Parking and traffic is already difficult, when shopping at this mall.

Looks like this proposal will move most of the parking indoors. My guess is you and I aren’t the demographic they’re aiming for. I suggest we will be shopping elsewhere.

mixed-use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements.

Yep. That probably makes this project more likely to go forward.
I hope staff and the various commissions can expedite this, as it will enhance the city’s revenues.

Don: There is currently no agreement with UCD. (That’s why it’s headed to mediation.) This is a megadorm proposal, just above existing retail.

Regarding demographics, maybe so. We’ve already established that students spend very little, in the city. I do currently shop at this mall (e.g. Trader Joe’s). Probably won’t, if they make it even more difficult to travel/park there than it already is.

Regarding your last comment, it’s good to know that you’re actually against Affordable housing.

Regarding demographics, maybe so. We’ve already established that students spend very little, in the city. I do currently shop at this mall (e.g. Trader Joe’s). Probably won’t, if they make it even more difficult to travel/park there than it already is.

I think I can state with some confidence that students make up a significant percentage of the shoppers at the University Mall.

Regarding your last comment, it’s good to know that you’re actually against Affordable housing.

I’ve made my views on the city’s affordable housing policies clear on dozens of occasions. In a nutshell: I’m against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.

If the city has no binding agreement, history will repeat itself – e.g., not providing adequate/promised student housing on campus – resulting in proposals such as this one which compromise existing commercial space (and bypass Affordable housing requirements), continued unreimbursed impacts on the city as a result of UCD’s plans, master leases from UCD – which deprive the community of property taxes, continued displacement of non-student renters, etc.

Fact: Vertical mixed use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements..

David and Don: Do both of you support this exemption?

Requiring affordable housing in vertical mixed use would reduce the likelihood of those developments actually occurring.
I am against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.
So I support the exemption.
I would also support a complete, top-to-bottom revision of the city’s affordable housing policies. IMO they are presently hopeless and have been for years; in fact, the history of affordable housing in this town is quite a story. I understand that there are strong interest groups aligned against such a revision, and that it is very unlikely to occur. So I may support or oppose various proposals that tinker around at the margins of the current policy, depending primarily on whether they actually encourage the development of affordable housing or whether they simply act to inhibit residential development.

Don: “Requiring affordable housing in vertical mixed use would reduce the likelihood of those developments actually occurring.”

There is no evidence to support your opinion, particularly with the low vacancy rate that you often complain about. There is no reason why Affordable housing should not be included for all multi-family housing, including vertical mixed-use proposals.

You do not agree with the statement that a project being less profitable makes it less likely to occur? Really?
Seems like a pretty simple concept.
Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units?

Don: “Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units?”

Whatever the motivation was previously, there certainly appears to be sufficient demand for multi-family housing, now. There is no excuse to waive Affordable housing requirements for any multi-family housing proposals, including vertical mixed use.

Don: “Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units?”

Whatever the motivation was previously, there certainly appears to be sufficient demand for multi-family housing, now. There is no excuse to waive Affordable housing requirements for any multi-family housing proposals, including vertical mixed use.

Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units, Ron?

From article: “The project proposes 264 multi-family units which would consist of one, two, four and five-bedroom units that range in size from 700 to 18000 square feet. They estimate the total bed count to be 894.”

I assume that the “18,000” figure is a typo, and should actually be 1,800 square feet. (Regardless, I would guess that this is larger than most houses, in Davis.) If they’re counting beds, then it’s probably rent-by-the-bed.

Regardless of what you want to call it, it’s primarily student housing (as noted in the article itself), over an existing retail space.

And yes, student housing (on campus) is a primary issue of the mediation. Expect to see even more of these types of proposals, if the mediation fails (and if the city fails to grow a backbone).

On the surface it appears to be a great project. Hope it becomes an example for the other neighborhood centers, not to mention the downtown. The one initial question I have has to do with parking. Parking minimums have been a point of discussion the past couple of years so I wonder if our requirements fit with the current best practices. If not, now is the time to make a change.

It was important for every apartment to have a phone jack 30 years ago but today few (if any) kids have (or want) a landline. As the cost of owning (and insuring) a modern car keeps increasing and more kids use ride sharing services we will need less and less parking at student apartments (and should think about adding things like UBER car waiting spaces)…

I think this is a very promising, if not great project (great remains to be seen, but see that as potential)… yet the proposal is surrounded (buffered?) by two-story apartments on two sides, commercial on one, and UCD across Russell from the other.

Same would not be true of the strip mall on Eighth, between N & Pole Line, nor the one on G, between Seventh and Sweetbriar (aka Cemetery Road)…

Yet even those sites could ripen into 3 stories with same concept with retail below, residences above…

Suggesting that one project could be a model for another is not the same as calling for a duplication. Every project is different so the end-point will not be the same, even if all are based on the same basic idea or model.

“Yet even those sites could ripen into 3 stories with same concept with retail below, residences above…”

The financial analysis provided with the downtown plan shows that three-story mixed-use projects are no longer viable (minimum 4 plus). Your three-story fantasy will not be built so if you want redevelopment you need to change your expectations.

How would the proposed development ensure parking availability for retail customers (which retail relies upon, to survive)? In other words, what would prevent new residents or visitors to those residences from parking in spots intended for retail customers?

Time limits? Fines for exceeding a certain period of time? Who would pay for the enforcement (e.g., issuance and collection of fines)?

Do the research, Ron… works @ Marketplace and many other places locally, statewide, nation-wide and internationally… I have no inclination to “spoon-feed” you… and spaghetti is best eaten with forks or chopsticks…

Howard: You constantly make these kind of remarks, in which you suggest that you have some special knowledge (but are unwilling to share it). While simultaneously suggesting that the logical concerns I noted are somehow my responsibility to research and provide answers to, presumably before even bringing them up.

If you have something useful to share, why don’t you do so? Isn’t that the purpose of this blog?

Or, do you just like “throwing spaghetti”, of your own?

(Given your history, I suspect that I already know the answer to that.)

Howard: In fact, your example (“Marketplace”) is not vertical mixed use. It’s strictly a commercial development (as University Mall currently is). Why would you even bring that up as an example, in regard to the mixed-use proposal (e.g., and related issues regarding parking that’s shared with residences)?

Howard: Again, enough with the half-responses and half-insults, while simultaneously suggesting that you know something that you’re not sharing.

Are you stating that Marketplace (your example) shares parking spots with off-site residences? If so, then just say so. And, perhaps address how that works.

Also, are you suggesting that adding residences to an existing commercial/retail center (which draws customers from throughout the city) will have no impact on traffic and parking challenges at/near the site? Perhaps even impacting the viability of some of the existing businesses (assuming that they simultaneously might want to pay increased rent)?

I believe that this far enough removed from the people living downtown and in the near core area that exhibit NIMBY and NO-GROWTH tendencies and it is not endangering any high-qualify farm land, so you would think that it would not be opposed.

However, I hear that there is a movement to prevent environmental impacts to the daily migrating crows that use the parking lot to purge their bowels every evening about the time I go to Trader Joes.

The first point is that I view this entire discussion as disingenuous on your part. If you were so concerned about affordable housing, you would not oppose every project (or nearly so) that comes before the council. There are two ways to build affordable housing and both involve building housing right now.

The second point is that the exemption discussion misses the key point. The exemption was put into place when RDA disappeared. Prior to that, you could fund affordable housing regardless of the type of project and you could do so at a much higher rate. Until we find a replacement for that funding stream, we are forced to coddle together approaches – none of which will happen if we do not build more housing.

The third point is that if you believe that vertical mixed use in a town that cannot go horizontal easily is necessary, then you have to look at ways to facilitate it.

but if you oppose every project, you get no new affordable housing. And so your argument here makes no sense. You say you want affordable housing but you oppose all mechanisms by which to build it.

David: You made an accurate prediction, since you did not actually answer the question.

You did make comments and incorrect assumptions/conclusions regarding me and my motivations, though. This type of response (and some of the others on here) show exactly why the Vanguard will never be anything but a biased political blog, increasingly supporting any type of development, and encouraging (and sometimes participating in) personal attacks against anyone who raises concerns.

This approach is also very likely a reason that you (initially) noted a dearth of comments regarding this proposal, on your blog.

RDA money may never come back. Also, note that we are no longer in a recession, as evidenced by the multiple proposals we are witnessing.

I’ll ask again, since you continue to avoid responding. (Which is yet another political tactic.)

Do you support the Affordable housing exemption for vertical mixed-use?

LOL. I gave you my answer and it carefully lays out my position and fully addresses your question. You believe that this is a poison pill for housing developments and are attempting to use the issue as a wedge to stop them. That’s fine, but it likely will not work.

I suggest you read my answer again, especially points two and three, it answers your question. I just don’t give a straight yes or no that you wanted to see. But the answer is clearly there. Goodnight.

David: “Until we find a replacement for that funding stream, we are forced to coddle together approaches – none of which will happen if we do not build more housing.
The third point is that if you believe that vertical mixed use in a town that cannot go horizontal easily is necessary, then you have to look at ways to facilitate it.”
Isn’t it very clear what I’m saying here?

David: You might want to take a lesson from Don, here. At least he was clear, as noted below.

I can provide an example for you, as well: I do not support the exemption. I haven’t seen any justification to keep it in place. (In fact, the elimination of RDA money is yet another reason to eliminate the Affordable housing exemption for vertical mixed-use.)

Don: “Requiring affordable housing in vertical mixed use would reduce the likelihood of those developments actually occurring.
I am against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.
So I support the exemption.”

Ron: “Like David, you didn’t answer the question”

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you not see words that are right in front of you? Do you understand why people get so completely fed up with you here?
“Sort of.”
Give me a friggin’ break.I support the exemption.
Got it?

Our Advertisers

About Us

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.

Twitter

We are most of the way there - we have just $760 left to raise this month until we reach our $4000 goal. We’ve don… https://t.co/jWPVB0ZNEa

RT @latimes: At least 63 professional journalists were killed around the world this year. This is a 15% increase from last year, cites Repo…